( 1. ) THESE are two connected matters and raise identical questions and, therefore, we deem it proper to dispose them of by a single order.

( 2. ) THE short facts giving rise to these petitions are that the petitioners who are said to be members of Thela Khomdha Union, Gwalior, were arrested Under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the afternoon of February 14, 1978, for prevention of sabotage of public meeting and preservation of public peace and tranquillity at the site of the proposed High Court building at Gwalior. They were produced before the Executive Magistrate, Gwalior, for action Under Sections 107 and 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police also submitted an application to the Magis-trate for taking immediate action against the petitioners under Sub-section (3) of Section 116.

( 3. ) THE learned Magistrate, after perusal of the reports submitted by the police, recorded the following order the same day, i. e. , 14th February, 1978, Under Section 111 of of the Code of Criminal Procedure :

It appears to me on perusal of the report submitted by the police Kotwali, Jhansi Road, that the accused (petitioners) were raising slogans on 14-2-1978 at the proposed site of High Court building: at that time the foundation stone was being laid and there was apprehension that they would cause breach of the peace by resorting to arson and loot. I Indu Sharma, Executive Magistrate, Gwalior, therefore, think it necessary that in order to prevent the breach of public peace and tranquillity, the accused should be bound down to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of six months and, therefore, they may be called upon to execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 500/- each for the purpose of maintaining peace and be of good behaviour. Signed and issued under my hand and seal today the 14th February, 1978. Indu Sharma, 14-2-78 Executive Magistrate, Gwalior.

( 4. ) THE order was read over to the petitioners, but they refused to sign the same. However, it appears that they did not admit the accusation. As already stated above, the police also made an application that since there was imminent danger of breach of peace by the accused, they may be called upon to execute bonds for keeping the peace until the conclusion of the inquiry and, in case, they do not execute the requisite bonds, they may be detained in custody. This application was allowed by the Magistrate who directed that till the conclusion of the inquiry, each of the accused should furnish a bond in the sum of Rs. 500/- for keeping the peace, and, in case, they fail to furnish such bonds, they may be detained in custody. The accused refused to furnish such bond and were consequently detained in custody. Thereafter, the Magistrate started recording evidence and we are informed that one of the cases is fixed for orders and the other case has been kept for recording evidence today.

( 5. ) THE only point urged by the learned counsel Mr. Jai Prakash on behalf of the petitioners in both the cases is that the detention is illegal inasmuch as the Magistrate has passed an order for execution of bond by the petitioners before commencement of the inquiry. It is urged that the Magistrate acquires jurisdiction to direct execution of interim bonds Under Section 116 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, only after he has commenced the inquiry till conclusion of the inquiry. In support of this contention, learned counsel has relied on Madhu Limaye v. Ved Murti AIR 1971 SC 2481 : 1971 Cri LJ 1715 and Madhu Limaye v. Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr and has urged that the Magistrate was not competent to direct the petitioners to execute the bonds merely after perusal of the police report. The short question for our determination, therefore, is whether in the present case, the inquiry can be said to have commenced,

( 6. ) SECTION 116 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that after the. commencement and before the completion of the inquiry